I agree with other posters that this is a fine article, until about the last several paragraphs. It's pretty disingenuous for this guy to buy into the "Hillary dissed MLK" thing when it is, as anyone who has paid attention knows, totally untrue. Hillary was not devaluing the work of her idol, MLK, but rather insisting that it took a cooperative of people, including LBJ, to make MLK's dreams into legal reality. (And keep in mind that she only made these statements after Obama had the 'audacity' to compare himself to MLK, a man he never knew.)

I may be only 21 years old but I still understand what was going on during the time periods this article refers to, and unlike many people in my generation, I am not so naive as to think that the so-called "culture wars" are behind us. There is still a lot of work to be done in this country, not only on issues of race but also of gender and of poverty. I trust Hillary to take action to recognize those problems sooner than I would trust the political chameleon Barack Obama.

Luckily for McCain the people who listen to him aren't going to know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a either.

The guys at the club, I mean. I may live a sheltered collegiate experience, but I don't know a single guy who prefers silicone to the real thing. Even may gay friends think fake boobs are freakish. I mean, seriously. Even given that men's minds are in the gutter, who wants to feel up plastic?

It's about time someone made it plain that if these anti-liberals really think that calling Hillary a "fucking whore" is a sign of their (or, ridiculously, Obama's) progressive politics and intellectual high-standing and moral fiber, they can go somewhere else. Those of us who prefer rational discourse to childish, vulgar, sexist insults will, however, continue to read Salon.

Thanks for this, Joan. Even though you don't endorse the second half of the video, I still enjoyed watching it. It's refreshing to see Hilllary portrayed in a positive light, as a human being, for once. But I won't hold my breath hoping it's not the only time.

No word on if the club will pay for the replacements the winner will need in about 10 years, or her medical expenses should one of the implants rupture or be rejected?

I don't know who this mystical, overgeneralized "us" is supposed to be. I personally have no interest whatsoever in 60s culture. Or I should rephrase... I have no interest in the romanticized LSD, upper-class white kids "sticking it to the man" with rock music culture. Other things that happened in the 60s, like the Civil Rights movement and the rebirth of feminism and gay rights, those are fairly interesting, but unfortunately they often get overshadowed by people reminiscing about how cool it was to be stoned/tripping all the time.

The thing everyone is completely ignoring is that for a very sizable percent of the population in America, and the overwhelming majority worldwide, being a stay-at-home mom is a luxury women can't afford. The whole SAHM is a purely upper middle class phenomenon: Throughout history and across the globe, women of all but the highest classes have had to work to support their families, whether it was in the fields with their husbands, in their homes weaving textiles and other goods to sell on the side, or rearing and educating other people's children. Even in the "good old days" of the 1950s and so on, women of color and most working class women were still making their way in factories, mills, classrooms, and other workplaces. Two-income households are not nearly as new or radical as we like to think.

This entire discussion of how natural or proper being a SAHM is vs. being a working woman is totally irrelevant to most people in the world both today and throughout history. Most people do not have a choice, either way. It is a ridiculous, self-absorbed, elitist American construct and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we will discover just how absurdly privileged and spoiled we are to even have the option of staying at home and letting someone else earn our living.

I guess Wilentz was just spinning more fantasy when he cited the polls that show Clinton beating McCain and Obama losing to him.

I think, in any case, that the point Wilentz was making is that Obama's alleged sweep of the Democratic vote, and his supporters' subsequent insistence that Hillary should step down, are fictions. Does Obama have a lead in the popular vote? Sure, but it is so slight that Hillary would be a fool to give up now when neither she nor Obama can win before the superdelegates have had their say.

The fact is, for all these Obama supporters calling Hillary a whore and saying she is trying to steal Obama's nomination and suggesting that Obama is going to win no matter what... approximately half of the Democratic voters in the world are hearing you, loud and clear. And all you're succeeding in doing is pissing us off.

Do you really think you're going to win the general election without us? And do you really think you can win our support by bashing our candidate of choice with all the vulgar insults and contrived biases you can pull out of your asses?